Editorial: After the acquittal of a former death row inmate, a debate is needed on executions in Japan

Japan should be keeping its citizens safe, but instead it is taking lives. Is it acceptable to maintain the ultimate punishment in such circumstances? This is a serious issue for society.

The acquittal of Iwao Hakamada, 88, on death row, was finalized after prosecutors decided not to appeal the verdict handed down by the Shizuoka District Court in his retrial.

Given the purpose of the retrial system, which is to provide redress to the innocent, this response is entirely natural. But Japan’s Attorney General, Naomi Unemoto, took the rare step of issuing a statement expressing her “strong dissatisfaction” with the final ruling, which acknowledged that investigating authorities fabricated evidence in Hakamada’s case. It was clear that the authorities were trying to save face until the end, suggesting that they were not taking seriously their responsibility for producing false accusations. Police and prosecutors should think deeply about the matter and immediately launch an investigation to uncover the truth behind this unjust investigation.

False accusations threaten people’s lives

The latest incident has highlighted problems with Japan’s death penalty system.

Hakamada spent 34 years on death row for the murder of a family of four in Shizuoka Prefecture in eastern Japan. If the death penalty had been applied, there would have been no way to remedy this miscarriage of justice.

In the 1980s in Japan, there were four similar cases in which people sentenced to death were found not guilty during a retrial. There have also been cases where the validity of convictions has been challenged even after the death sentence has been carried out.

Errors are inevitable even during testing as long as humans evolve in the process. The danger of putting innocent people to death cannot be eliminated.

Even today, potential sources of false accusations, such as forced confessions during investigations and preconceived assumptions, remain deeply rooted.

After the death sentence was handed down, Hakamada had to live in constant fear of execution. Under such circumstances, he became mentally ill and, even after his release, had difficulty communicating with those around him.

It was in 1948, shortly after the end of World War II, that Japan’s Supreme Court declared the death penalty constitutional. She ruled that the executions did not fall under the “cruel punishments” prohibited by Article 36 of the Constitution. At the same time, a judge issued a follow-up opinion stating that it could become unconstitutional if public opinion changes over time.

The abolition of the death penalty is a global trend. According to an international non-governmental organization specializing in human rights, 144 countries no longer apply the death penalty, including those which have suspended it. The countries that maintain it, located mainly in the Middle East and Asia, are in the minority.

In 1989, the United Nations adopted the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming to abolish the death penalty. Since 2007, the UN has repeatedly adopted resolutions calling on countries that maintain the death penalty to suspend executions.

Countries develop their own criminal justice systems, but respect for human rights is a universal principle that transcends national frameworks. Life is the foundation of human rights. The abolition of the death penalty is based on the idea that this right must not be violated, even by a State.

As for why Japan maintains the death penalty, successive justice ministers have stated that “the majority of the public believes that the death penalty is inevitable for extremely malicious and violent crimes, and that it cannot There is no end to heinous crimes.” Indeed, in a public opinion poll carried out by the government in 2019, 80% of respondents responded that the death penalty “could not be avoided”. However, 35% of those surveyed said they would support its abolition if life sentences, which imprison people for the rest of their natural lives, were introduced.

Consider a full-scale debate in the Diet

It is necessary to take victims’ feelings regarding punishment seriously. The feelings of the bereaved families whose loved ones and loved ones were murdered, prompting them to call on the perpetrators to pay with their lives, are understandable.

On the other hand, there are families who maintain a permanent dialogue with the perpetrators of the crimes to know the truth about the crimes.

Support for victims of crimes, such as help with rebuilding their lives and mental care, must be strengthened regardless of the punishment of those responsible for the crimes.

Makoto Ida, a professor at Chuo University and a criminal law specialist who headed the Legislative Council of the Ministry of Justice, emphasized: “Punishment should be seen as a means of imposing sanctions on those who violate the rules social and maintain order. justify taking the life of an individual for the public good. »

Problems with the operation of the death penalty system itself have been reported. People sentenced to death are strictly deprived of any contact with people from the outside world. Furthermore, they are only informed of the date of their execution on the day, and the fear of death persists throughout their incarceration. They don’t have time to say goodbye to their family members.

Public opportunities to obtain information about the death penalty are limited. The Japanese government does not disclose the decision-making process surrounding executions, such as when and who was involved, nor does it provide details about the circumstances of the punishment.

A group of Diet members have undertaken activities to end the death penalty, and in the past a bill to abolish the death penalty was proposed. But no large-scale discussions took place.

It is necessary to create a forum in the Diet to review the death penalty system. Hakamada’s acquittal should be an opportunity to deepen the debate with a view to abolishing the death penalty.